THE PHILOSOPHY OF CULINARY ARTS
A "Cooking is at once child's play and adult joy. And cooking done with care is an act of love," once remarked by the renowned writer, Craig Claiborne. This sentiment echoes at the esteemed Culinary Institute where I currently impart philosophical reflections. Here, students can master the art of French patisserie, dive into the intricacies of sushi-making, explore vegan delicacies, and so much more. But what would culinary pioneers think of a course titled 'Artificial Flavors and Their Creation'? Believe it or not, such a course exists in our curriculum. It's open to any student meeting the academic prerequisites in our 'modern culinary techniques' track.
B This course is primarily designed for aspiring food scientists and innovators who wish to understand the chemistry behind replicating natural flavors, enhancing existing ones, or creating completely novel sensations for the palate. But doesn't this open the door for creating misleading food products, where an artificial flavor masks the true nature of the dish? This isn't to diminish the importance of food science; it's vital in the evolving landscape of culinary arts. However, it poses the question of how higher education might unintentionally abet deceptive practices in the gastronomic world.
C My reflections on this dilemma deepened when I was invited to share insights with a class specializing in 'Sustainable Culinary Practices'. The regular tutor, a dear friend and a champion for ethical food sourcing, believed I could introduce a philosophical lens to their studies. One could dissect this topic in countless ways, but I was captivated by the course title, leading me to inquire, "Is sustainable cooking truly sustainable?" After all, a discipline can follow guidelines, much like the structured steps of a recipe, without being ethically sustainable. Many students instantly felt that considering the vast array of global cuisines, not all are produced sustainably, and therefore the practice isn't inherently ethical.
D Can this be conclusively stated? I introduced a provocative perspective: perhaps sustainability in cooking is, by definition, ethically rooted. My muse for this hypothesis is the philosopher John Locke, who believed knowledge is a compound of ideas and operations.
E Applying the dual notions of 'operation' and 'idea' to culinary arts, students engage in courses to refine their cooking techniques. But to what end? Two dominant perspectives emerge. The first assumes the goal is evident: cooking seeks to produce delectable dishes. The second presumes the intent of culinary arts is subjective, where every individual brings their unique vision, which may or may not align with culinary excellence. My contention, resonating with Locke's philosophy, is that neither view encapsulates the true essence of culinary pursuits. Both the operation (technique) and the idea (intention) define a discipline; thus, both warrant examination. Students must explore both how to craft a dish and the philosophy behind their creation.
F This brings us back to 'Artificial Flavors and Their Creation'. This course, at a glance, seems wholly operational, focusing on how to engineer flavors. The underlying assumption is that the intention is noble, perhaps to enhance food experiences or cater to dietary restrictions. When probed about the core purpose of their field, culinary students often converge on the notion of 'nourishing the body and soul', which seems apt. Yet, the same technical knowledge could be employed for less virtuous purposes, like deceitful representation of food quality or content. But such actions would fall outside genuine culinary arts. We'd term it food adulteration. Similarly, if one were to use sustainable cooking methods unethically, it wouldn't represent sustainable culinary arts. It would be mere pretense. Locke might illustrate with a gardener who nurtures plants versus one who uses growth enhancers. The former is gardening; the latter, manipulation.
